Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed March 10, 2000. Disbarment.

Stanton A. Hazlett, disciplinary administrator, argued the cause and was on
the formal complaint for
petitioner.

No appearance by respondent.

Per Curiam: This is an original uncontested attorney discipline case filed by
the office
of the Disciplinary Administrator against Thomas Jeffrey Richardson of Wallingford,
Connecticut, an attorney licensed to practice law in Kansas. Richardson was disbarred by the
Superior Court of the State of Connecticut on April 22, 1998, based on guilty pleas in the
United States District Court of the District of Connecticut, on May 10, 1996, to conspiracy
to commit mail fraud, 18 § U.S.C. 371 (1994); mail fraud, 18 § U.S.C. 1341 (1994),
and
misappropriation of funds by a fiduciary, 38 § U.S.C. 6101 (1994).

The Kansas Disciplinary Administrator filed a complaint alleging that Richardson had
violated KRPC 1.15 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 342) (safekeeping property) and KRPC 8.4
(1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 399) (misconduct). In the complaint, the Disciplinary
Administrator requested that a hearing panel determine the merits of the allegations and
violations and make a recommendation to this court pursuant to Rule 211(f) (1999 Kan. Ct.
R. Annot. 234) as the panel deemed just and equitable. Richardson was served with a copy of
the formal complaint, notice to respond, and notice of hearing. He failed to appear at the
hearing of the panel.

By the introduction of court documents, the Disciplinary Administrator presented
evidence to the panel that Richardson had been convicted in the United States District Court
of the District of Connecticut of three felony counts, including conspiracy to commit mail
fraud, mail fraud, and misappropriation of funds by a fiduciary and had been subsequently
disbarred by the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut. The Disciplinary Administrator
referred the panel to Supreme Court Rule 202 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 207), which states
that a certificate of conviction based on clear and convincing evidence shall be conclusive
evidence of the commission of that crime in any disciplinary proceeding instituted against an
attorney based upon the conviction, and a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that a
lawyer has been guilty of misconduct shall establish conclusively the misconduct for purposes
of a disciplinary proceeding in this state. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Disciplinary
Administrator recommended disbarment.

The panel found that the out-of-state court records established that Richardson aided
his law partner, John A. Carrozzella, in executing a scheme to defraud clients of monies
entrusted to them. Richardson falsely represented to clients that Carrozzella would invest
the money for them and the money would earn a very good rate of return. Richardson
allowed Carrozzella to improperly use money held by him as a fiduciary for clients. In order
to continue the scheme to defraud, Richardson mailed letters to all his clients who had
entrusted money to him or for whom he held money as a fiduciary. The letters included false
statements regarding the principal balance and the interest earned. The panel further noted
that based on court documents the entire scheme to defraud resulted in a loss of
$12,474,017.44; however, Richardson claimed that the loss attributable to his conduct was
approximately $1,000,000.

The panel found, based on the court documents, that in order to execute the scheme
to defraud, Carrozzella invested client funds in real estate, stocks, and bonds. Carrozzella
also used client funds to cover interest payments to be made to clients and to cover expenses
associated with the management of the investments. Beginning in 1987, the investments
performed poorly and the money invested was lost or significantly reduced. The real estate
and stocks purchased with client money were not purchased in the name of the clients, but
rather in Richardson's name, Carrozzella's name, or in the name of the partnership. On May
10, 1996, Richardson entered guilty pleas to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud, and
misappropriation of funds by a fiduciary. Richardson received a prison sentence of 24
months, which was reduced to 20 months, and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount
of $2,892,607. Based on the convictions, Richardson was disbarred by the State of
Connecticut on April 22, 1998.

The panel concluded that because Richardson, by means of his guilty plea, was
convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud, and misappropriation of funds by a
fiduciary, Richardson had committed criminal acts that reflect adversely on his honesty and
trustworthiness, in violation of KRPC 8.4(b) (misconduct).

The panel reviewed the factors provided in the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions, § 3.0 (1991) (Standards), including: (1) the duty violated; (2) the lawyer's
mental
state; (3) the injury to the clients; and (4) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.
The panel concluded that Richardson had violated the duty to maintain standards of personal
integrity by aiding and abetting Carrozzella in defrauding clients of a substantial amount of
money. As to mental state, the panel found that Richardson intentionally engaged in
behavior that caused the loss of millions of dollars. The panel found that the injury was
overwhelming.

Regarding aggravating or mitigating factors, the panel observed that Richardson acted
from dishonest and selfish motives; his scheme to defraud involved multiple clients which
established a pattern of behavior; the victims were extremely vulnerable; and Richardson had
been practicing law since at least 1979. The panel also noted that prior to being disbarred in
Connecticut for the felony convictions, Richardson had not otherwise been disciplined and
that he had been sentenced for 20 months in a federal prison as a result of the crimes
committed.

The panel recommended disbarment. In reaching its decision, the panel considered
§ 5
of the Standards, which states that disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages
in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes fraud. The panel
concluded that because Richardson had been convicted of three felonies involving fraud,
disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disciplinary
Administrator,
finds that the respondent should be disbarred.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Thomas Jeffrey Richardson be and he is hereby
disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and his license and privilege to practice law are
hereby revoked.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name
of Thomas Jeffrey Richardson from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall be published in the Kansas
Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to respondent, and that respondent forthwith
shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 250).